Análisis de resultados: Tipificación de las RSGBC

Lakatos sees scientific changes as competition between research scientific programs (Lakatos uses the British term ‘programmes’), which contain a hard core and a protective

belt. Changes within research programs are made only to the protective belt, but never to

hard core, while scientific revolutions occur when a degenerating research program is overthrown by a progressive one. A program is progressing, as long as it expands its application to larger set of cases and its progressive versions make novel predictions, which

365

are confirmed366. Whereas, each new version of a degenerating program is inconsistent with the previous versions i.e. is ad hoc with respect to its predecessor367. Musgrave (1978) applies all these principles of Lakatos to his reconstruction of the Chemical Revolution, so as to provide an account in Lakatos’ perspective, which, as he claims, aspires to be more sophisticated position of falsificationism and conventionalism.368.

The main argument presented by Lakatos’ methodology is that phlogistonism was a degenerating research program, while the oxygen program was a progressive one. To support this argument Musgrave argues that between 1770 and 1785 ‘each version of the oxygen program was empirically and theoretically progressive’, while ‘after 1770 the phlogiston program did neither’, since each version was inconsistent with the previous one, so to say, it ‘consisted of a series of ad hoc devices, mutually inconsistent with each other’369. Pyle (2000) argues against that ‘phlogistic chemistry was a successful and progressive research program when it was overthrown, as it was also generating lots of new confirmed predictions’ i.e. Scheele in 1786 used phlogiston theory to produce and isolate successfully new acids370. To examine Musgrave’s claim, I explore the question whether the two research programs between 1770 and 1785 were progressive or degenerating.

To begin with oxygen program, as we have seen, Lavoisier’s first hypothesis in 1772, i.e. ‘the same air, which was absorbed in calcinations and combustions, was liberated in the reduction of calx of lead (PbO) with charcoal’, it was proved to be false, since this gas was carbon dioxide; therefore Lavoisier corrected this first assumption in 1775. This means that oxygen program generated false predictions between 1772 and 1775. Furthermore, oxygen as principle of acidity introduced in 1777 and supposed to extend to acidity (application to larger set of cases), as Musgrave claims, it was proved to be false in 1815, which means that oxygen program generated false predictions also between 1777 and 1815. The same is

366 _{As Lakatos in (1978), p. 112, puts it: ‘A research programme is said to be progressing as long as its}

theoretical growth anticipates its empirical growth, that is, as long as it keeps predicting novel facts with some success (progressive problemshift); it is stagnating as it gives only post hoc explanations either of chance discoveries or of facts anticipated by, and discovered in, a rival programme’.

367

See Lakatos and Musgrave (1970), pp. 9-15.

368 _{See Musgrave A. (1978), Why did Oxygen Supplant Phlogiston? In}

Method and Appraisal in the Physical Science, pp. 181-209.

369 _{See Ibid, p. 205 and p. 203, where he cites, as an evidence for his argument, Lavoisier’s critique against}

the contradictory properties of the same entity presented by the phlogistonists, as explained ‘just like Proteus’, Oeuvres II, p. 640.

370

Pyle in (2000), p. 107, argues that Scheele produced many organic and non-organic acids. If we look at my reaction (4), the intermediate products, nowadays oxides, by dephlogistication can give acids.

true with ‘caloric’, which was proved to be false as well. All these retrogressions, with the exception of caloric, do not concern changes of the protective belt (auxiliary hypotheses), but of the hard core, therefore they are not signs of a progressive research program, according to Lakatos’ definition.

As for phlogiston program, apart from Scheele’s success in 1786, it had done many predictions successfully between 1770 and 1785. First, Priestley was the one who discovered the ‘dephlogisticated air’ 1774, which Lavoisier named oxygen. Second, Cavendish was the one who discovered the ‘inflammable air’ that led to the discovery of the composition of water. Third, it was Priestley who held successfully that air was not a simple substance but a compound in 1775, and, besides, the phlogistic chemists were the ones who discovered the composition of water in 1781. This led to the new chemical classification of compounds and simple substances, namely water and air. Musgrave in order to answer Kuhn’s question i.e. ‘who first discovered oxygen?’ argues that Lavoisier was the one, because he did not only isolated it but he also correctly identified371 it. Granted Musgrave’s thesis, one might argue that Priestley or Watt, as they had isolated water and correctly identified it as not a simple substance but as composition, they discovered its composition. Finally, it was Kirwan372 the one who showed in 1789 that dry charcoal when heated emitted inflammable air, which it was anomaly for the oxygen theory and it was proved to be carbon monoxide, as explained. All these were successful predictions of the phlogiston program, which cannot be regarded as signs of a degenerating research program, according to Lakatos’ definition.

In my opinion, Musgrave’ account over-emphasizes the role of the time factor (i.e. between 1770 and 1785); therefore it fails to establish a Lakatosian account of the Chemical Revolution. On the contrary, Peirce’s notion of ‘in the long run’ progress of scientific inquiry within the scientific community as a whole can explain the historical events better. Because, for Peirce, scientific inquiry involves much retrogression in the short run, while only the long run application can secure the progressive character of scientific inquiry. As I have shown, according to synechism (CP 5.180-212. 1903; Pragmatism as the Logic of

Abduction), reality is not an instant result of inquiry, as this notion implies that the contents of time consist of separate and unchanging states, but of a continuous sequence of events, therefore we cannot reject the whole process.

371

See Musgrave A. (1978), p. 195.

372

Although Lakatos emphasizes this continuous Hegelian aspect of progress of inquiry373, and as a result he does not need to specify time limit for characterizing a research program progressing374, Musgrave’s account, in order to show the progress of Lavoisier’s program, is focused only on short-time examination, therefore it degrades this far-reaching and fertile process. Furthermore, even though Lakatos, correctly in my view, argues that historical ‘internal’ reconstruction should try to explain history of science rationally and to discover novel historical facts375, Musgrave fails to show the rational process of discovery in the Chemical Revolution. But we have to admit that some criteria of rationality, proposed by Lakatos (1978), contributed much to the progress of inquiry. These criteria are: theories with more explanatory power, with no anomalies, with excess in empirical content, extension of their application to larger set of cases and theoretical growth that anticipate their empirical growth. At first sight, as we have seen, some of the above mentioned criteria characterized Lavoisier’s theory (e.g. more explanatory power, no anomalies); therefore I am going to explore this question in the next Chapter in detail. From this point of view, I can agree with Thackray and Schofield concerning the ‘rationalization of chemistry’, but not with their view of the ‘profound failure of the Newtonian program’ in eighteenth- century chemistry376, because, as I argued, the Newtonian mechanistic view inspired Lavoisier to apply theprinciple of conservation of weight in his reverse reactions.

However, the success of science cannot be attributed to one ‘superior’ research program, but to the whole scientific community, since the discovery of oxygen would have been impossible without the discovery of the dephlogisticated and inflammable air, as well as of the water composition by the phlogistonists. Neither can a superior and ‘ideal’ (progressive) research program better contribute to the progress of science, as Lakatos and Laudan 377 after him held by suggesting some methodological rules and reasonable criteria to scientists, so as to join the ideal research program. In my opinion, the progress in the Chemical Revolution was better served by diversity of competing opinions within the scientific community, where different scientists made different choices, due to distinct reasons.

373

Ian Hacking in (1981) has usefully drawn attention to the importance of Lakatos’ Hegelian background.

374

See Lakatos (1978), pp. 116-17.

375

See Lakatos (1978), pp. 133-34.

376

See Thackray (1970), and Schofield (1970).

377

First, because of the fact that scientists’ skill, which contributes to the progress of scientific inquiry, consists of different aspects applied to different phases of inquiry. As explained, it involves originality in the abductive phase, good predesignation of experiments in the deductive one and efficient and without prejudice experimental tests in the inductive phase. I am going to show in the next Chapter in detail that the contribution of each program (phlogistonists and Lavoisier) to the discovery and to the formulation of the new theory was different in each phase of inquiry. Second, competition of different opinions within a pluralist scientific community constitutes an inner dynamic that forces scientists of rival theories to attribute more weight to the anomalies and the solved problems. As we have seen, both Lavoisier and the phlogistonists even though they began with ignoring several anomalies, they were forced later to attribute more weight to the anomalies that their theory could not explain.

Furthermore, due to social reasons different research programs in different countries develop some topics of inquiry more than others traditionally, whose results scientists from other programs can use for their inquiry. As Kun argues378, ‘Islamic chemists had known

that some metals gain weight when roasted’, and Mayow in 1674 held that this increase in

weight was due to the atmospheric air. It was this background knowledge that led Lavoisier to explaining the gain in weight on calcinations by the absorption of air. Finally, as I concluded, connections of theories outside the domain of local inquiry contributed much to the progress of inquiry. On the other hand, though phlogiston worked successfully for more than a century as ‘sulphur principle’ and as a component of salts379, it could not work any longer in pneumatic chemistry. All these factors contributed much to the discovery of oxygen; therefore we can infer that the Chemical Revolution was better served by diversity of competing opinions within the scientific community.